MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. President Bush today
announced his intention to nominate Marvin Sambur to be Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Research and
Development. That's the only personnel announcement for the
day. I'm pleased to take your questions.

Major
Garrett.

Q Ari,
can you explain to us what relationship cutting income tax rates will
have on helping Americans deal with higher energy prices now, when the
income tax cut won't come until next year's filings, and even a
$100-billion stimulus, if done in the form of a tax rebate, wouldn't
arrive at the earliest, according to the Treasury Department, for three
months?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The energy crisis is causing millions of
middle-income and working Americans to pay more than they would like to
pay to fill up their tanks with gasoline. One of the fastest
ways to get relief to people is by cutting taxes.

The tax cut
that the President asked the Congress to pass is retroactive, and as
soon as Congress is able to get to it, the American people can get tax
relief in their pockets faster. That's one reason why the
President feels so strongly that if Congress were to delay taking
action on tax relief after Memorial Day, that the traveling public
consumers will suffer. The faster that Congress gets it
done, the faster the money is in people's pockets.

Q But
if, in fact, the Treasury Department is right, that it will take three
months to actually get these checks out if, in fact, that's the choice
Congress decides to make -- and it hasn't -- that takes you past the
summer driving season. How are these two things related in
any way?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Whatever the period of time is -- and I don't
know that it's three months -- whatever the period of time is, if
Congress delays, the time will be later. The faster Congress
acts, the faster people will get relief into their pocketbooks.

Q So
what you're saying is that the consumer will have more money to pay the
higher prices to line the pockets of the big oil?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Consumers will have more money to pay for their
needs as they see fit. And to the degree that the traveling
public is paying --

Q But
that has nothing to do with oil prices, pe se.

MR.
FLEISCHER: But giving people tax relief will allow them to
have more money in their pockets to use as they need and as they see
fit. And, certainly, people are paying more money at the pump and they
need more resources to help them to pay that money. Cutting
taxes is one way to get people those resources.

The same
argument is made about cutting the gasoline tax as well. At a time
when prices keep going up, there's no guarantee that cutting the
gasoline tax will lower the price. The price may just rise
faster than the amount that the gas tax is cut back.

Q You
think the fact that a consumer can pay more now will help the whole
situation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There's no doubt about it that people are
suffering, and the President wants to make certain that a plan is in
place, both on the energy front and on the tax front, so people have
more money in their pockets so they can deal with the rising cost, not
only of energy, gas at the pump, but home heating oil and for their
other needs that are complicated by energy. Air conditioning
bills will be higher, gas bills will be higher, and this is a long-term
problem that the American people face. Tax relief is a
solution that works not only now, but it will work permanently down the
road.

Q But,
Ari, if the immediate tax rebate goes to energy costs solely, and
calculations have been made that would give five tanks full of gas to
the average American in the course of a year from this rebate, how does
it speak to the broader question of the President's desire to use a
rebate to stimulate the economy, and not just the energy sector?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, one of the reasons the economy needs to be
stimulated is people don't have as much disposable income to invest or
to save because they're using it to pay for higher energy
bills. Tax relief helps mitigate that. It gives
people more command over the decisions they make to invest their money
as they see fit.

For some
people, that will --

Q But
if all of that money is going to pay for gas, where is the money to
invest?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Nobody said it's all the money. It all
depends on individual circumstances. Some people have larger
costs than other people. But there is a fundamental
principle involved here in tax relief, and that is the President's
opinion that money belongs to the people who made it, they deserve to
keep it, they deserve to spend it as they see fit, not as the
government deems proper.

Q You
don't think the government is the American people?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Not when it come to their --

Q I
mean, why do you keep separating us out?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the government serves the United States, the
American people, and serving the American people, the American people
don't want to turn over all their money.

Q And
you don't think that the government is the people, or --

MR.
FLEISCHER: The government's the people, and the government's
entitled to 100 percent of the People's earnings, and the President
doesn't share that view.

Q They
don't get 100 percent; you know that.
Q Ari,
you addressed the question -- the ever-shifting rationale the President
presents to the American public for this tax cut. During the campaign,
it was about it's the people's money, we don't want to leave a large
surplus in Washington. Then it was about the
economy. Now it's about energy prices. Is there
no rational the President finds that supports a tax
cut? Does every excuse out there justify cutting taxes?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think what you're seeing is a series of good
reasons why taxes should be cut, and that's why there's bipartisan
support to cut taxes. But the President said, when he
announced his tax plan, dating back to December of 1999, is taxes
should be cut, because if you don't cut taxes, the politicians will
spend the money. Taxes need to be cut because people earn
the money. It's theirs, and they have a right to keep
it. And taxes should be cut as an insurance policy against a
future economic downturn. Those are the three reasons the
President gave in November of 1999. Each of those three is
just as valid today as it was then.

Q Up
on the Hill, Democrats released their energy plan just a few moments
ago. What's the White House response to their proposals?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There are several interesting overlaps between
the Democrat plan and the President's plan. And there are
several areas in the Democrat plan that are worth noting and worth
support. For example, the Democrat plan, just like the one
the President will offer, promotes efficiency, conservation and
renewables. The plan offered on the Hill by some Democrats
includes funds for weatherization and for LIEAP, to help low-income
Americans. So too does the President's budget and the
President's plan.

The plan
offered on the Hill by the Democrats talks about
conservation. The President has already offered a
conversation proposal, where the federal government would cut back on
its use of energy. There are a couple other areas of the
Democrat plan that do not go in the right direction, and those include
price controls, which do not work, which ultimately create greater
energy problems, and they are not a short-term solution, let alone a
comprehensive solution. The other aspect of the Democrat
plan, which was tried in October of 2000, and did not work, is tapping
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If tapping the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve had worked, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Q So
what's your overall assessment?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The overall assessment is that the energy plan
offered by the Democrats on the Hill today has some areas of
overlapping, commonality with the plan that the President is about to
propose, and the President looks forward to working with Congress on
those areas. The President believes that we can promote
conservation, we can increase energy development, and we can do so
without complicating matters or hurting matters through price
controls. That's the President's position.

Q Ari,
you were talking, the Vice President was talking to renewable energy
people today. How big a problem -- I gather the
administration was telling them and agreed with them that there is a
huge problem in permitting for renewable energy, in
particular. Can you talk about what you see as the
bureaucratic impediments, especially to power in the West?

MR.
FLEISCHER: On permitting for renewables?

Q Permitting
in general, but particularly for renewables.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me take that question and try and get back to
you on the specific substance on permitting.

Q Okay,
let me ask you another question. Senator Daschle has
introduced 22 amendments to the tax plan. The first five of
those, I believe, mention giving people money in their pockets in order
to help pay for higher energy costs. Does the White House
regard that as an agreement with the President's
proposal? Have you talked to Daschle about it?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Depending on exactly what Senator Daschle
proposes, the President is encouraged by the fact that the Minority
Leader is moving forward in the same vein that the President discussed
from this podium last Friday. The President does believe
that tax relief can be a helpful way to give people relief from the
energy woes that they're suffering, and he's pleased to hear that
Senator Daschle agrees.

Q Ari,
we have a new poll coming out today that says only 39 percent of
Americans approve of the way the President is handling the energy
situation, while 43 percent disapprove. Are you concerned
that what the President wants to do is not what the public wants?

MR.
FLEISCHER: John, number one, the President is not governed
by the polls. The President is going to focus on a plan that
he thinks is right and that is the best plan for
America. Clearly, the energy problem is a very vexing one,
and to have substantial support from the American people -- that's
one-to-one support -- indicates that there are many Americans who
understand how difficult a problem this is.

Q But
is he concerned that more Americans do not approve of the way he's
handling it? I'm not talking about governing by polls, I'm
talking about doing something the American people don't want.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, he hasn't even announced his plan
yet. I'm certain that once the President announces his plan
and makes the case for it, the American people will respond favorably
to what the President is proposing. The American people know
that the United States now is suffering an energy
crisis. It's been a problem long in the making; it's hit
some states harder than others, and it's going to take leadership, it's
going to take a well-rounded approach, an approach that focuses on both
conservation and on development of energy supplies. It's
going to take an approach that says we can't be overly dependent on
foreign supplies of energy. That will be the focus the
President makes, and he'll do so because he thinks it's the right way
to solve the problem

Q Ari,
what's the President's view of the McCain-Lieberman bill with
background checks and three-day waiting period on gun show purchases?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President supports closing on the gun show
loophole so that criminals are not able to go to gun shows to get their
hands on guns. He favors doing so with a plan that does it
as quickly as is possible. The President believes we can
have an instant background check, and the instant background check
should apply to gun shows.

Q Does
he rule out any waiting period?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will work with the Congress on the
exact details of it, but the President favors an instant background
check. In addition to facilitate making sure that states have the
resources to put in place an instant background check, the initiative
the President announced yesterday on gun safety includes $44 million so
states have more resources to update their computerized files so the
background checks can be as instant as is practical.

Q I'd
like to get in one more, too. You probably notice there is a
bunch of people outside the White House today in wheelchairs, basically
complaining that the President has dropped the ball on his new freedom
initiative. Can you respond to that? Didn't he
promise to do an executive order on that right off the bat?

MR.
FLEISCHER: On the new freedom initiative? The
President announced the new freedom initiative in I think either the
second or the third week of his administration and has sent his
proposal up to the Congress, and the President is going to work with
the Congress on it. The President considers it a very
important initiative.

Q Was
there a commitment for an executive order?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Is there something specific you have in mind,
Ron?

Q Well,
they claim that was one of the things that there is supposed to be an
executive order.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Specifically what?

Q Beats
the heck out of me, Ari. They said he had broken his promise
to sign by February 1st an executive order to implement -- oh, the
Olmstead decision.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me see if there is anything further on that.
But that's a very broad question, the Olmstead decision.

Q He
also said -- asked for someone to speak to them -- someone from your
administration. Is anyone going out there today to talk to
them?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I would have to check around the building.

Q Who
is the lead point person on the new freedom initiative in the White
House?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's the domestic policy group.

Q Ari,
you've talked about the danger of price controls before, and again
today. Could you explain to us, put it in the White House
words, what will happen if price controls are introduced to the
market? What's the x's and o's? What will then
happen, this happen, that happen? What will we see?

MR.
FLEISCHER: In the President's opinion, one of the most
important short-term actions the government can take to prevent the
energy crisis from getting worse is to avoid price
controls. Price controls will cause more harm than good in
the economy, in terms of people's ability to get
energy. They will drive supply down, they will create more
demand. Price controls do the exact opposite on both the supply count
and the demand count than is necessary to solve the energy crisis.

Q Because
it shields consumers from the real price of energy, therefore
consumption patterns don't change, and producers lose the incentive to
bring product to market, because their prices are controlled and they
can't make adequate profits. Is that basically it?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Price controls have never
worked. They're artificial. They end up causing
more damage and hurting more people than the backers of price controls
would indicate. It's well-meaning, it's well-intended, it's
never worked. The problem with price controls is, they do
the exact opposite of what they purport to do. They decrease
supply at a time when Americans need more supply, so that the prices
can come down and stay down.

Q Patients'
bill of rights, the Frist bill, which I guess is about to be unveiled,
why does the President like this and dislike all those that have gone
before it?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes very strongly that this
year can be the year we get a patients' bill of rights done and enacted
into law. He views this as one of those issues where people
have fought so long that they've stopped putting the national needs
first and the need of patients first, and they put the needs of the
parties first.

The
President has proposed six principles on a patients' bill of rights,
and the bipartisan legislation offered on the Hill today by Senators
Frist, by Jeffords and by Breaux meets those six principles the
President announced. And so the President is supportive of
this effort.

Q Is
the crux of it the lawsuit issue -- how to limit lawsuits?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's one of the many issues, but the other
issue that the President is pleased to see is that the patients' bill
of rights proposal that was announced by this bipartisan group on the
Hill today applies to all Americans, for example; it's comprehensive,
patients are entitled to a rapid medical review process for denials of
care. It does not turn our courtrooms into trial rooms -- I
mean, it does not turn our hospitals into courtrooms where all
decisions are made by lawyers. And that's another reason
that the President supports it.

It holds
plans accountable for the decisions that they make, and the President
believes that patient protection should encourage, not discourage,
employers from offering health care. The bipartisan plan
offered on the Hill today meets those principles.

Q Ari,
in 1998, a jury in San Antonio ordered Diamond Shamrock Refining
Corporation, to pay a widow, Donna Hall, $42 million from the death of
her husband at the refinery. The jury thought that this was
a way to punish the company for knowingly using unsafe
equipment. Governor Bush, at the time, pushed tort reform
law that limited that award to $200,000.

Last year,
President Bush took $5,000 from Diamond Shamrock's political action
committee. Two questions: One, is the President
now concerned that there's a growing public perception of him siding
with the oil industry on everything from the energy crisis to workers'
rights? And two, does he have second thoughts about tort
reform in light of the Diamond Shamrock case?

MR.
FLEISCHER: First of all, the President is going to do what
he thinks is right, regardless of whether or not one group of society
supports him or opposes him on it. And he'll continue to do
that in the case of tort reform. What's happened all too
often is consumers pay far higher bills than is necessary, and that
instead of people being able to get justice through the courts, the
courts have been turned into a system where lawyers are able to come
in, especially trial lawyers, and drive up health care costs, consumer
product costs for everybody in society.

Under the
patients' bill of rights, for example, we were just talking about some
of the principles. Under the President's approach, patients
would be entitled to sue on an unlimited basis for economic damages
suffered. But when it comes to non-economic damages
suffered, the President does believe, and so, too, does a bipartisan
group of senators, that there ought to be a reasonable cap.

Q Ari,
one reason why people think we have regional price spikes in gasoline
is because of the complex reformulation issue. And the FTC
investigation confirmed this. I'm wondering whether your
energy plan will seek to simplify the reformulation
procedures. I believe there's 15 different gasoline formulas
the country has in use, and that prevents gasoline from flowing from
one region to another during shortages.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to preview everything that's in the
proposal the President will make, but suffice it to say the President
is very concerned also about the state of the environment, and
reforming gasoline is one of many items that serves as an environmental
protection as we develop America's energy resources. And the
President is mindful of that.

Q Ari
--

MR.
FLEISCHER: Les.

Q In
the President's effort to promote intelligent government spending --
that is, only where it's really needed -- does he believe that the
Democrats on the San Francisco City Council were wise to vote to
provide any city employee who wishes with $37,000 to be changed from
male to female, and $77,000 to be changed from female to male?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Not a topic I've talked to the President about.

Q You
can take it. I'm going to be away for a week, and I've got
one two-part here.

Q Yea!! (Applause.)

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's time for the bonus
round. (Laughter.)

Q London's
Daily Telegraph reported --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Where are you going?

Q Around. There's
a National Convention of Talk Show Hosts in New York.

MR.
FLEISCHER: You'll always be welcome here. You
will always be welcome.

Q London's
Daily Telegraph reported that Prime Minister Tony Blair is considering
recommending to the Queen an honorary knighthood for Mr.
Clinton. And Reuter's News Agency reports that Mr. Blair,
when asked about this, laughed. And since honorary
knighthoods were conferred upon Presidents Reagan and GHW Bush when
they left office, can you deny that anyone in the White House laughed,
too, or did anyone think that Mr. Blair was wrong to laugh?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Try hard as I may, I've not kept up with all the
White House laughter. I don't know what all my coworkers
laugh at.

Q Last
one. On Sunday, The New York Times reported at some length
from Geneva that the former runner-up for Miss America, who is now the
wife of the Swiss ambassador to Germany, has been furiously criticized
by the Swiss media and the Swiss foreign ministry because she posed for
photographs on a horse wearing a strapless gown, among other
things. Since this gorgeous young lady is Shawne Fielding,
the former Miss Texas, she can surely depend on gentlemanly support
from the former Governor of Texas, can't she, Ari?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Les, I'm afraid you're 0-3 on your final round of
questions. I don't have anything to offer you on this
topic.

Q You
don't know? Does he know her, do you know?

Q Has
the President met with any of the oil industry people on the whole
question of gasoline prices?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The Vice President --

Q Has
he tried to rap with them at all?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'd have to check to see if individual members of
the Vice President's group or any staff members have had any
conversation with the people who produce energy. It wouldn't
surprise me.

Q But
how about the President? Has he talked to the big oil people
at all?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'd have to check. I don't know who
he's talked to.

Q Why
not? I mean, how do you form an energy program without that
kind of --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, that's why I indicated that I'd have to
take a look at the individual members of the task force, to see who
they've talked to, because they've talked to more than 130 groups, some
of whom are energy producers, some of whom may be involved in oil
production and development, some of whom are involved in other fossil
fuels.

Q But
he knows a lot of these oil people very personally, so --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Not as I just indicated. I don't have
the information on exactly who the President has talked to.

Q Ari,
Democrats today said that they will encourage the President to talk to
our friends in OPEC to "open the spigot" and get supplies flowing into
this country. And I'm just wondering, where is the President
on his pledge of March 12, 2000 in Plant City, Florida, to encourage
OPEC nations to "open the spigot?"

MR.
FLEISCHER: There are a series of ongoing discussions with
leaders of OPEC. And they will continue to take
place. They are quiet, they are diplomatic, and that's the
focus of the President's efforts.

Q Is
he satisfied with the amount of movement he has made toward fulfilling
his campaign promises?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, in terms of the manner in which the
President will focus on this, and his administration will focus on it,
those efforts are ongoing, and they will be kept as a matter of
diplomacy.

Q Have
they been responsive? Are they responsive?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Saudi Arabia has already indicated publicly,
several months ago, that they would seek to keep the price of petroleum
at $28 a barrel. And so there have been some indications
that the OPEC nations and other nations understand that we are an
interrelated world when it comes to America's energy use, and their
decisions they make about production. And there will be
continued ongoing diplomatic outreach and
discussions. They'll be done quietly, because the
President's conclusion is that type of diplomacy is the most effective
diplomacy.

Q I
just have a follow-up to that. Is the President concerned
that if the President of gasoline, the price of crude oil were to drop
too much, it would dissuade the type of domestic production that he is
trying to spur in this national energy policy?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, that's one reason the President feels so
strongly that the nation needs a comprehensive approach that
diversifies our supplies of energy. For example, it's not
only the question of the amount of supply, it's a question of the
refinery capabilities, the infrastructure capabilities, the electric
transmission grid. All of those are factors that go into
making sure that supply and demand are in equilibrium. And
that's going to be the President's --

Q Yes,
but it's also a question of price, it's a question of
price. And if the price is not at a certain level, you can't
have the level of domestic production that the President is seeking.

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's a question of having the market establish
that equilibrium, but doing so in a way that recognizes that no new
refineries have been built for 25 years, that our nation's
infrastructure is old and needs to modernize, also recognizing that
there are many ways of producing more energy at a more efficient
rate. And all of that will be the President's focus.

Q Going
back to that quote from last year, did the President realize at the
time that he was oversimplifying or overstating the President's ability
to demand countries open their spigot, or did he not realize at the
time?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think what the President was stating back
then is a recognition that in the absence of any other type of
comprehensive energy policy, that dealing with OPEC was one of the few
things that the previous administration had at its
disposal. Obviously, this is the first administration in
many a year to come out with a comprehensive energy plan which includes
one portion of which is to continue these diplomatic conversations with
our OPEC friends and other nations around the world.

Q The
negotiations?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I've misstated that -- I would not call it
negotiations. But the point is that if you have only one or
two options, and tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an option
the previous administration took -- obviously it did not create the
results that the administration sought -- there are very few options
they have, other than to talk to OPEC.

This
administration has a much more broad, comprehensive approach that
involves, as I mentioned, conservation and efficiency, production,
diversification and quiet diplomatic discussions with our OPEC allies.

Q At
what point did the President determine that quiet diplomatic
discussions with our OPEC allies would be more productive than a very
public pronouncement such as you made a year ago?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think when you -- the President, as part of the
development of a comprehensive energy plan, recognized that this is the
best way to handle discussions with OPEC, I think when it came to a
lack of anything that was comprehensive in nature, there were very few
things the previous administration could do, because they were not
focused on the comprehensive approach. Talking to OPEC was
one of them.

Q So
at that time, yelling was a good idea, but now it's not?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Clearly, having a comprehensive plan is the best
idea.

Q What
does he think of the OPEC prices now?

Q To
what extent to you regard the high price of oil and gasoline the
responsibility of OPEC's policies?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's the point I was making about
supply. It's not just a matter of supply; it's also a
question of the infrastructure and the refining capabilities of the
United States. If we were awash in supply but did not have
the refining capacity to get it to market in the form of gasoline that
people could pump into their cars, obviously OPEC plays a more narrow
role.

Q Ari,
refining capacity, of course, is not just a U.S. phenomena, it's
around the world. Has the President considered talking with
Japan or Europe, which seem at this point not to have this kind of
tight refining problem, about diverting some of that refined product
here?

MR.
FLEISCHER: David, that is one of the items that the group
met and talked about, and as the President indicated --

Q Ari,
which group?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The task force, the energy group. But
as the President indicated at his news conference last Friday, there
are issues associated with transportation of refined products from
great distances. It's not the most cost-effective way to bring
products to the market; therefore, the more you ship it, the longer you
ship it, the more the consumer has to pay for it. The best
way to get the price of gas down.

Q It
is a short-term solution. Until you get -- building
refineries takes a few years.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Only if you can do it in such massive, sizeable
quantity to impact the market, and that's not clear that you can do
that.

Q I'm
sorry -- this is a related question to this. When you ask
the Europeans and Japanese how they manage to do that, they point, of
course, immediately to their much higher at-the-pump price, much of
which

is, of course, built into it with taxes. Has the President
considered following that kind of model as a way to encourage more
refining --

MR.
FLEISCHER: If you're asking, does the President think that
the solution to the crisis is to raise the price of gasoline, the
answer is, no, he's on the side of the consumer.

Q Ari,
on David's question, though, isn't it really --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let's get some new people in here.

Q Ari,
are you going to have a readout on the meeting with Arafat's aide?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me see if we're going to have anything on
that. I'll talk to Condi later. The meeting is at
State, so you may want to talk with them. The meeting is at
State.

April. Welcome
back.

Q Thank
you. Ari, President Bush has made it plain he believes in
family, in supporting families. He's also talked against a
lot of political mud-slinging. Has he talked to his brother
in support of him in the midst of all this controversy in Florida?

MR.
FLEISCHER: April, I haven't asked him, and I don't intend
to.

Q Ari,
you've already indicated the President is not moved to act by polling
data. But to what extent is the energy problem increasingly
a political one for this White House?

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's not the President's focus. The
President thinks that the best politics comes from the best substance
and the best government. And that's where his focus
is. He believes the nation has an energy crisis that has
been building and brewing, and his only focus is on fixing it.

Q What
about other officials?

Q --
regulatory burdens the President mentioned that he wants the
administration to assess as far as energy -- and what regulations does
he have in mind that he thinks are getting --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the energy report will speak to that
directly, so you'll be able to hear in the energy report about a series
of regulatory hurdles that have allowed a situation to take place where
-- California, for example, hasn't built any power plants in the last
10 years; the nation hasn't built any new refineries in the last 25
years. When it comes to transmission of electricity across the power
grid, so that when one region is experiencing an electricity shortfall
and people may suffer blackouts, another region can pick up the slack
-- another region of the nation can pick up the slack and send the
energy across the grid.

When it
comes to nuclear energy, obviously there have been a series of
regulatory steps that have inhibited the advancement of new nuclear
power, which is a technologically advanced way of getting nuclear power
to people's homes, so that when they turn on their lights, their lights
work.

Q Do
you plan to establish a formal review process, just like Andy Card did
at the beginning of this adminstration, for other regulations?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'll let the report speak for itself.

Q The
President, in Philadelphia, met with a cardinal there. He met with one
in St. Louis when he was touting the tax cut. That's at
least two episodes I know where the President met with a high-ranking
official of the Catholic church, and there was no coverage allowed at
all. Could you explain that, and why there is what appears to be
intense White House sensitivity to coverage of these meetings, even
with stills or a small pool?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, Major, going back during the campaign,
the President often would meet with religious leaders of all
faiths. He had a meeting with a group of Islamic leaders in
Michigan, with a group of African American ministers. He's
met with Catholic leaders throughout the country, with Jewish leaders,
and he'll continue to do that.

Some of the
meetings, particularly there have been some in the White House where
people have come out and talked to you afterwards, but when the
President travels and visits, for example, a bishop or an archbishop's
home, very often the President feels that the best way to have those
meetings is to respect the privacy of the people he's meeting with.
They are often at their homes, and that's the way the President
approaches matters of faith, and also matters of talking to religious
leaders about how to improve the fabric of American society.

Q Ari,
following David's question, isn't it really more a matter of
regulations requiring reformulated gas than cost, and that if you were
to issue waivers for RFC, you could immediately take advantage of
excess refining capacity in countries like Venezuela, which is just a
short hop away from the Gulf Coast?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I already addressed that issue. There
is a question of how much you can get into the markets by bringing in
refined product from other nations. It's a transportation
issue. That again involves tankers, that involves the
capacity to bring into the country refined product. And it's
not the easy solution that you would present as you make it sound.

Q Ari,
Senator Shelby today met with Louis Freeh up on Capitol
Hill. He told him that the FBI has had just too many
failures and too many blunders lately. Does the President
share that assessment?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President addressed that topic on Friday at
his news conference, and he said that there are two reviews that are
under way at the Department of Justice right now involving the FBI
right now, and the President is going to receive those
reports. And if he has any further evaluations, he'll share
it with you at that time.

Q Is
there any sense of any growing frustration with some of these missteps
that have been so public?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'll leave it in the President's words as he
expressed it last Friday.

Q Ari,
though you say the President is not motivated by politics, clearly
there is political dimension with this problem that affects the White
House. The President has laid out a plan that identifies the
problem as a long-term one that requires long-term solutions, but there
is obviously a political sensitivity over the short term for people who
are paying more, suffering brown-outs and that sort of thing.

Is that a
problem for the White House? How do you balance the policy
prescription that you've come up with, with the sensitivity to the
short term for which you keep saying there's not much you can do?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's focus on this and on all other
matters of a similar nature that may offer some difficult, difficult
politics is to do his job, to do what he thinks is right for the
country to enact the policies that he thinks are the best and that
would solve the nation's problems. He's a big believer that
if you solve people's problems through good policy, the politics will
take care of itself. And that's the direction that he has
given to the Vice President's group, and that's the path that he has
chosen to follow.

Q Don't
you have -- I understand all that, but don't you have a political
concern that people will look over the short-term and say, hey, the
White House isn't doing enough over the short-term? You have
Governor Davis once again on Sunday literally begging you to impose
price caps. How do you deal with the short-term politics,
even though you think the key things people are asking for would not be
the correct solution?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I can only explain it to you how the President
approaches these problems. And the President's view is, one
of the most important short-term steps you can take is not to make the
matter worse or last longer. Price controls will make the
matter worse and make the crisis last longer.

Q On
the House education bill, as you saw, it passed 41-7 last
week. In the seven were six House Republicans, and according
to the paper yesterday, they were called to the White House and sort of
given a stern talking to. What kind of message does that
send to conservatives that people who are trying to support the
President's principles on education are now being told to be quiet and
go along with the, as they said it, Ted Kennedy and George Miller,
people they think the White House is trying to please?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The White House is always going to keep in touch
with people on both sides of issues, whether they're Democrats or
Republicans. And the President is always going to work hard
to build consensus behind his ideas. And he was very pleased
to see that his education plan was able to, as you said, get 41
votes. That's a very powerful sign of how good the education
proposal is. And the President is heartened by
that. He'll continue to work with other Democrats and
Republicans. If Republicans have a concern that they don't
think it's a -- there's something in there that's a good idea, the
President wants to talk to them, or the staff will talk to them.

Q Isn't
it a strange picture, the Chief of Staff chewing out conservative
Republicans for basically trying to keep --

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's just not the case.

Q --
trying to keep to the campaign plan on education?

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's not the case that there was a chewing out.
It's always a question of listening to people's ideas, and if they have
concerns about a substance -- substantive proposal, to give them a good
hearing, to listen to them and to explain the President's reasons for
acting as he did. Obviously, the President's education plan
has large bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and the President's very
pleased by that.